Skip to main content

About your Search

CNN 14
FBC 11
English 115
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 115 (some duplicates have been removed)
the normal economy. >> eliot: in ten seconds explained to me the austerity bomb. paul krugman has give you a huge boost. we'll explain it several times. explain what the austerity bomb is. >> it's the expiration of the bush tax cuts and the deal from last august. unlike a cliff which you fall over and you fall to your death there is no climbing back up, an austerity bomb can be diffused or mitigated and that's sort of what congress is trying to do now. they're not slowing the drive towards the cliff. they're trying to defuse a bomb. >> eliot: i love the metaphor. brian beutler many thanks for your time tonight. from the fiscal to the foreign. education is the key. it is the vehicle. it's the way in which we evolve. every journey is different every possibility is unique. but the beginning, the beginning is my craft. i'm an ordinary person striving to achieve extraordinary things. it started with a dream and i'm on my way there. >> eliot: as part of our ongoing series current feeding the needs let's not forget america's stubborn weight problem which brings us to the number of the day, 35.7.
benefits of reconstructions. john: we hear that before paul krugman claims 9/11 would be good for the economy. after the earthquake in haiti and to oppose the said this could be a boom economy for haiti. john: and appealing concept for the simple-minded. i want to help so i have an idea. i will do this. i will create jobs by destroying thing this. what is wrong with this logic? sally? what is wrong? i will stimulate economic activity. >> we recognize the firebreak something without your permission i melt -- arrested. please don't. [laughter] when you replace things it looks like it might add to the economy but it could be used for more constructive reasons. john: that is what eludes eludes -- elude paul krugman that the money has to come from somewhere going to something else. you both argue politicians have been around about to economic points. >> obama's says he will stimulate the economy with green jobs and mitt romney says defense spending this same principle but on different programs because the priorities are different part of the government gets involved and spend mone
think panetta isn't going to go anywhere anytime soon. very quickly treasury. joe said paul krugman, you said sheila bair. barney frank would be mine, send him back to the political world in a role that's important. would make republicans continuing to see him at treasury. i don't know that he'd get confirmed. on paul krugman? >> was right on a lot of things, and in a role on wall street in the great recession. >> she will give the king to the kingdom, very solid adult during the financial crisis, helped pull back from the brink. she is not used to being in the spot light. that's a good thing. for certain cabinet members you don't want them on the t.v. circuit so must have. you want them doing the workday to day with the american people. sanberg is another one she'd be good too. i think it takes a woman. >> absolutely. we've seen that theme. you know, i said that barney frank, but i think jack lew is going to do it. another game, chief of staff. >> tony veragosa. >> joe said deval patrick. i said the u.s. attorney in new york. i actually think in the end eric holder is going to stick aro
say to me the most interesting story of this is the submarine story of the left, paul krugman, carol, others, saying it's a horrible mistake to do this, it's 1937 all over again in terms of tax increases, spending cuts in the middle of a tentative recovery. i'm not as convinced that the left of the democratic party or left of the country is going to hold still for the deal. it's sort of a centrist beltway thing that the left opposes and right opposes and it's president obama, "the washington post" editorial board, new york times, a few others kind of in the middle there. we'll see. >> jon: the media loved it this week when the president met with some the heads of major corporations, but there weren't really any small business people represented and the question, is it just a photo op? >> well, i think the president is reaching out, he's making an effort to meet with a lot of different people. it is interesting that the first people who saw him after his election were union people and that shouldn't be surprising, but the media did take note of that. but i think that, mr. boehner's co
by the president would do that. i love quoting paul krugman, as you know, the liberal from the "new york times." >> dana: enron adviser. >> andrea: he said 365,000 jobs needed to be created per month to get the economy back on track. so in the words of paul krugman this is a paltry number we got in today. if you break it down, dana and you look at the group, the demographics. this is obama's base. african-americans, unemployment, 14.3%. young people. young people, trying to rally to get to polls on tuesday are at 16%. people forget the government only factors people looking for work in the last four weeks. i doesn't factor all of the people who stopped looking for work or people with experience and degrees who are in fast food restaurants right now. in addition to the part-time work. so i would have a hard time with the president coming out, saying that this is great and we're where we need to be. >> dana: go ahead, bob. >> bob: i was going to say that the people not looking for work, said for the first time it's now changed course and more people are entering the workforce looking for work. t
are saying. read paul krugman's article in "the times" today. frankly, it's a lot of wall street folks who are saying you got to deal with it because wall street guys have been wrong about virtually every economic forecast they've made. let them scream that the sky is falling. it really will not. i want to switch gears for a moment. the recent move on the part of the republican party to rush for immigration reform. that is an affirmative outcome of the election. do you think it's doable? >> yes, i do. if republicans learned one lesson and hopefully they'll learn this one, it's that they were totally on the wrong side of the issue of immigration reform. they ended up nominating the candidate who was to the far right, the guy who said he would even veto the dream act if he were president. republicans clearly paid for it at the polls. i do think that this is an opportunity finally to get comprehensive immigration reform, the republicans finally have an incentive. if they didn't want to do it because it was the right thing to do, at least now they have a political rationale for moving forward.
's why i and many others, see paul krugman's piece in "the new york times," state request a certain passion no deal. mr. president, do not make a deal on fiscal issues with the republicans right now. call their bluff. stare them down. tell them to go over the cliff and enjoy the ride. the public gets it. the public understands that the rates should go up for the wealthiest. look at every poll on the matter. look at the outcome of prop 30 in california. mr. president, you need to tell speaker boehner that the time for elliptical answers and vagueness is over. tell him if he wants to have a substantive conversation on fiscal negotiations, it's time for him to put his cards on the table face up. ask him to explain exactly which loopholes he would like to close. ask him to explain how those loopholes could be closed without designating the middle class. tell him the time for specifics mr. president, it's time to announce specifics. start with the capital gains rate. make it clear this is an essential part of any deal. capital gains should be taxed as ordinary income. there should be no
of the american people who are not on the extreme. i read paul krugman's kcolumn ad it's fine to hold as much ground as possible but it is misleading to the american people to think that staring the fiscal cliff in the face and saying, let's go over it because we're not willing to compromise is a winning proposition. the president is running no longer for re-election. he's running for history. >> right. >> and he can be historic president if he makes a really good compromise and gets us over this fiscal cliff. >> compromise, as you've written in your book, does mean all sides giving something up. we'll watch this carefully. amy gutmann, thank you for being with us. >>> are you ready for the next big shock to the financial system? my next guest saw the t.a.r.p., the 2008 bang bailout. he says, no, we're actually worse than the financial crisis. n for your legal matters. maybe you want to incorporate a business you'd like to start. or protect your family with a will or living trust. legalzoom makes it easy with step-by-step help when completing your personalized document -- or you can even acce
, paul krugman advised the president this morning to just say no. what's the president going to do? >> let me get my phone out, and i'll find out for you. [laughter] i do find it amusing that whatever you and the previous speaker said of me, everybody laughed. so i don't know what that says about my credibility. um, i don't know what the president's going to do. i guess he's speaking at 1:30, heidi and i were discussing it before, and we'll get some tone from where he's coming from. i would simply say i disagree with paul krugman. i think it's great the president won. i think he got a mandate. i think the country's spoken in terms of what kinds of fiscal policies it wallets. there was a lot -- wants. there was a lot of commentary during the election about how neither candidate put forth a clear policy agenda for the coming years, and there's some truth to that, but they both made clear the outlines of their policies, including fiscal policy. the balance between tax increases and spending to the achieve fiscal balance, who would bear the burden of it, and so on. so i think the presi
pretty nostalgic for the past and in particular the 1950s. paul krugman points out today that those were years of much higher taxes on the rich, much bigger labor unions and lo and behold, the economy was very strong in that era. what changed over the years to make them so harmful? >> well, martin, i think what they miss about the 1950s was the last couple of sentences that paul krugman talks about, and that is that women and minorities we knew our place back then and seemingly the rules were simple, right? everybody knew their place, everybody knew what they were supposed to do, and now we're living in a much more complicated society. also, we lived our lives very differently back then. you went to college, you got married, you had a job, and that was everything was pretty much laid out for a certain sector of the population. so that sort of dream of what is the nostalgia for a certain america was for a certain group of people and not for most of us. >> we just heard donald trump reflecting in answer to question that he would never dream of cooking the turkey because that would be the r
without the benefit of campaign activity. >> sean: you were attacked by paul krugman as having benefited financially, et cetera. >> i saw that. he wrote a piece in which he claimed that the reason i was involved in american crossroads is because i was a shrewd businessman and lining my pockets. i'm not against making money out of politics. he didn't bother to pick up the phone and call my office and say is mr. rove receiving any remuneration. >> so it is a lie? >> i won't say it is a lie. he was a paid consultant to enron but he is a sloppy journalist. the kind of slap dashed a how many nintendo attack. he used to be interesting and now just writes a column that he doesn't bother are to pick up the phone and say is karl rove designing a salary. i'm proud to be a volunteer as are millions of others helping to change the country. >> sean: with ohio it seems like romney is up in colorado. >> don't gloss over ohio. as of last night in the early and absentee balloting, 108,000 republicans have already voted. 108,000 more republicans railroad voted than voted four years ago. 155,000 pure democ
engineering solutions that no prize-winning scientist paul krugman things can reduce global temperatures if we do it on our own such as breaking clouds with salt water or painting room for white to reflect the sun's rays. what we are doing with the $12 billion we're spending on alternative energy is pushing people into cars they don't want to buy, where raising electricity costs, we are getting rid of incandescent light bulbs in favor of fluorescent light bulbs. the cost of this falls disproportionately on those who are least able to afford it. the lowest fifth of income distribution according to recent data published by the bureau of labor statistics spends 24% of their income on electricity, natural gas, gasoline, a household on the bottom spends 24% of its income on energy compared to an average of 7% for american households in general. 4% of income is spent on energy. it is strange that well-intentioned people who purport to represent the interests of the port are advocating policies that are going to do them harm rather than good. in addition to hurting the poor and putting taxpayer money
be standing here and talking about and it now on the left paul krugman and others are saying go over to the cliff. >> that's right. >> the president gave in twice. how dedicated both sides are to their premise. if we go over the cliff -- >> you don't think it's a slope, it's a cliff. >> i think it's an austerity sloping crisis of some kind. >> i think it's a black diamond slalom course so you're not going down the bunny hill. >> i'll agree is what it does breeds an incredible amount of uncertainty in the markets. if we don't know what tax rates we're paying that has a huge depressing effect on the economy. if we do go over the cliff, all the tax cuts expire. they can come back and say now we want to present tax cuts for the middle class and lower income individuals and are republicans going to vote against that? >> there's so much more to be done and said here. i hope we're not here with a special on new year's eve. i hope it's anderson cooper in times square and not us. becoming all too common. wall street tanks after a washington debacle. with the fiscal cliff looming, how can you
. ♪ ♪ lou: new york times economist columnist paul krugman is arguing for a return to the 1950's when incomes in the top tax brackets had to pay a marginal tax rate, are you ready , 91%. his part of what he wrote in the times in his column. america in the 1950's made to the rich parrot -- pay their fair share. 91 percent. it gave workers the power to bargain for decent wages and benefits, yet contrary to right-wing propaganda, define right-wing propaganda as anything that disagrees with pregnant, then and now it prospered, and we can do that again. so apparently this nobel prize-winning economist just wants to the commonwealth, raise taxes. 91 percent and everything will be fine. these tax-and-spend liberals are truly something else. in a class by himself. he fails to talk about, and we will hear tonight, the fact that back then we had a responsible government. a responsible economist and even a few responsible columnists. here's a comparison we want to draw, if we make. 1955, the middle of the decade, federal spending was just over 17 percent of gdp, 17%. now just about 23% of gdp, t
altogether? some pundits like paul krugman saying we should go over the fiscal cliff. let me read this to you, republicans are trying for the third time to use economic blackmail to achieve a goal they lack the votes to achieve through the normal legislative process. this has to stop. unless we want hostage taking the threat of making the nation ungovernable to become a standard part of our political process so what should the president do? just say no, and go over the fiscal cliff if necessary. richard, do you agree? >> you know, i don't agree. and i really think that that is not what this election -- at'sth not the message this election sent. i think people want the country to come together. and i think both sides are going to work very hard to do that. i think the republican blackmail is over. >> it seems like a very risky move. ana, would you agree with that? >> and i think it's, first not good for the country. and second not good for congress or for the president. this fiscal cliff is the first big legislative challenge they have coming out of the election. and i think it's going to set
. that is better place to be in. >> one final question. paul krugman comes out with a piece that you are stupid if you report that this is still a horse race or if you believe this is stale contest. he suggests president obama has a huge advantage. anybody that says otherwise is doing a disservice? >> you know, more krugman wants that to be crew. i believe it's very hard for people to separate the difference between what they want to be true and what is true. this happens on both sides. republicans say, romney is going to win. you mentioned a couple of people who have projected huge victories for the republicans. the argument on the left is, is obama always had this in bag. i think this kind of thinking hurt the president because they didn't treat romney as a worthy adversary and treat him in a big heart way. it made the president look smaller. >> they find themselves tied, even pennsylvania which is mind-blowing, 20-point advantage obama had not too long ago. thanks. >> both president obama and governor romney are cramming as many campaign stops as humanly possible. the president's agenda just
ground. don't compromise and don't give in. >> don't be held hostage. he said. >> remarkable. paul krugman is a noble prize winner, a smart guy. i don't know where he is getting this from. it's the opposite of compromise. the reason we are in this mess is because nobody will compromise. generally speaking it has been conservative republicans, the tea party and people who signed the pledge to nordquist not increase taxes. this is the domain of the right until now. i think he is trying to vane the seesaw by coming out with unequally unreasonable things to the left. he's wrong. absolutely wrong that nothing will happen. all you will see -- this is the dangs you park. you are getting disinformation from everyone. ernst & young has to be careful. they are a reputable accounting firm putting their name on this as if it was general research. it was commissioned by a partisan source on this. everyone has it. and we will work on this. you and me and cnn will make sure everyone has the facts because this is not facts. it is all distortion. >> little extra spicy today. >> little spicy. >> tha
" and paul krugman, author wrote train to talk about problems facing the u.s. economy for about an hour 45 next on booktv. [applause] >> well, thank thank you very m. thanks to the passionate attitude and technology in shakespeare books for hosting the event this evening. i also am very excited. i think we are all very excited to see probably two people who i would say are unquestionably the most cited economists in the world today. [applause] in addition to being most cited, and as you all know, those are noble laureates, i would have to say from the vantage point of the institute of economic thinking that if i were to nominate two people as being the most courageous economists in the world and the most impactful, the subpoena to find a list. so we're very excited to be part of this conversation. [applause] as you know, each of them has written a book that pertains to our current challenges and circumstance. joe stiglitz spoke, "the price of inequality" and paul krugman's book, "end this depression now!" are part of your goodie bag tonight. therefore on behalf of them i will thank you for
is getting pressure from the left. "new york times" columnist paul krugman going so far today to suggest the white house should be willing to daniel the economy to make their point with republicans. writing, "what should he do?" just say no and go over the cliff if necessary. the president said today he is open to giving in to a point. >> i want to be clear. i'm not wedded to every detail of my plan. i'm open to compromise. i am open to new ideas. i'm committed to solving our fiscal channel. i refuse to accept any approach that isn't balanced. >> the president broke with tradition not holding a news conference quickly after his re-election. aides point out he will take question next wednesday at the white house. that will coo inside with congress to come back in session to shape the debate. it will be his first full-fledged news conference since june. bret? >> bret: double duty tonight. ed, thank you. the most retweeted image of all time. who is in it? we'll explain in grapevine. up next, picture of confusion over legalized marijuana in colorado. mom always got good nutriti to taste grea
with him. paul krugman is saying, let's not make a deal. but at some point, he, being boehner, it's hard to sell that we're not going to give a tax cut to the middle class unless the rich gets it, too? isn't he running up against a political clock here? >> yes, it's a very tough position. voters went to the polls and said they don't buy that position and as e.j. pointed out, the president has tons of leverage here because if nothing happens, all of the bush tax cuts expire and exhibit plain that the reason taxes are set to go up is because republicans held them hostage to make sure they got tax breaks for rich people. another interesting thing from the exit polls is if you looked at who voters thought barack obama's economic policies would help, there were many people who thought it was going to be the middle class or the poor. for mitt romney, be overwhelmingly, people thought his policies would favor the rich. people already fill this way about the republican party but their policies are not designed to help the middle class. they are designed to help people who have already done well.
on the left, paul krugman in "the new york times" is saying do not make a deal just for the sake of making a deal, hold out and call the republicans' bluff. >> i think it was set up, one that was based on the president's argument. taxes needed to go up, particularly for the wealthiest americans. i think he has to stick with that. one thing he was clear about, he wasn't going to sign a bill with high end tax rates from the bush era. he's going have to negotiate with the republicans. if they have an ideal how to raise taxes from that group, i'm sure he's willing to listen to them. but i think rye now he's got to be successful in creating this fiscal framework that gives him the revenue that he needs to make the investment that he wants for the things like infrastructure, science and tack that he's talked about to the american people. he's going to be tough but befair to compromise. >> david gergen, the republicans say there is no mandate here but the president talks about the need for investment, the need for education, science, research infrastructure and talked about,000 pay for it. will t
about the wealthier later. and that was the position he took in his comment. and paul krugman wrote expressing liberal fears about grand bargains on taxes and entitlements. he wrote you know what could really produce the kind of dispirited bates that was supposed to doom obama in 2012, a sellout on key democratic values as a part of a grand bargain. do you have those fears, congresswoman? >> you know, i don't. the fact that the pld in his acceptance speech and then the day after when he talked about the fiscal cliff made it very, very clear. and the fact that he's going out on the stump now to talk to the american people who already agree that the wealthiest americans need to pay more. the fact it that he said he's not going to let senior citizens-wil citizens-wi -- half of all americans make under # $2,000 a year. are you serious, you're going to take it out of those people and have them pay down the deficit? no. but since we all agree that the middle class tax cuts should not be eliminated, he's right, let's just go ahead and do that right now. but i do not see this president sell
it might make sense to suggest a few names. for treasury, paul krugman. something to be said for having been right. as far back as the early days of the cataclysm he has diagnosed the problem properly both its micro and macroeconomic implications and called for the right remedies. he called out the beltway bloviatersers who mince words and are afraid to take a chance and usually go along to get along. paul won a nobel prize for a reason. the last thing we need is another wall street voice filled with self--serving malarkey about the reason businesses aren't investing. for secretary of state, john kerry not just because he won't be the part but because he has the depth of knowledge and capacity to deal with the gnarly problems out there. let's face it, the agenda isn't pretty. even after we're out of afghanistan and iraq, the middle east is a mess. the iran situation is a conundrum and china is omnipresent. for defense, colin powell among the wisest and thoughtful military leaders out there plain and simple. th
're calling this in the beltway media, right? picking a fight would be installing paul krugman at treasury. picking a fight would be like picking eliot spitzer for attorney general. picking a fight would be moving camp david to hawaii so the president could get in more beach time. picking susan rice for secretary of state if the president decides he wants to do that would not be picking a fight. it would be more, drawing a line in the sand. it would say starting now, starting day one of this second term, that i just won in a big national election that you lost, starting now we will fight about policy, we will fight about differences of opinion, we will fight about priorities, but we will not have anymore fights based on nonsense that the right made up to entertain itself. if we have a real beef, we will fight it out. but if it's made-up, that made-up stuff will no longer be entertained at the level of national policy. joining us now is bill bergman, a senior strategist for a pro-obama super pac. he previously served as the deputy press secretary for this president and for national press se
being said. we just heard mr. mcconnell. paul krugman wrote "the new york times," don't do a deal, mr. president. that will hurt the republicans more. his word was crazy. do you think people are going to do this? that this is a strategy? go off the cliff and just see what happens and i'll get more than that i thought before? >> i respect mr. krugman, but there are two things we should say. if we want to head off the cliff, taxes will go up not just on the rich, but on every american paying for income tax, including work k families. that's not a good result. if we go off the cliff, it will push us back to a recession. let's find a way to avoid those two outcomes. >> and we talked about the revenue side, which is important, but i know this is a dicey way of saying it, might be 40, 60%, but you get what i'm saying. cuts have to be made to entitlement programs. are we going to be able to get that done in time? >> i think we can. now, we've already cut $1.1 trillion in spending in the last two years and that should be part of our total. i think we've got to make some enhit mment reforms wh
of this is the submarine story of the left, paul krugman, carol, others, saying it's a horrible mistake to do this, it's 1937 all over again in terms of tax increases, spending cuts in the middle of a tentative recovery. i'm not as convinced that the left of the democratic party or left of the country is going to hold still for the deal. it's sort of a centrist beltway thing that the left opposes and right opposes and it's president obama, "the washington post" editorial board, new york times, a few others kind of in the middle there. we'll see. >> jon: the media loved it this week when the president met with some the heads of major corporations, but there weren't really any small business people represented and the question, is it just a photo op? >> well, i think the president is reaching out, he's making an effort to meet with a lot of different people. it is interesting that the first people who saw him after his election were union people and that shouldn't be surprising, but the media did take note of that. but i think that, mr. boehner's conciliatory attitude reflects exactly as said, the polit
: the argument that paul krugman, who i come back to frequently because he has been about the only economist who has been right at every stage from pre-cataclysm through now wait a minute weynes was right. he's basically saying the social safety net is what we need to build a middle class and create the assumption and create jobs. >> we can create medicare and the government can provide less money for seniors. in the end it comes out of their kids pockets. you're basically allowing for a tremendous amount of income inequality to continue in this country, and hopefully this will push the democrats to the left. if the republicans at least nominally shed some of these more social issues. >> eliot: ii love krugman's column twinkies being the age of stronger unions and this era that we've been talking about the definition of success actually was the progressive era era. >> yes, of course, i think he refers to it as the great compression. you have much less income inequality. all of our social security shortfall to the extent that they really exist is a function of income inequality because we're cap
government welfare spending. and, i mean, with these policy positions, how can we believe them? paul krugman says he doesn't trust the republicans so-called evolution. he said these new republicans we're told are willing to be more open-minded on cultural issues more understanding and skeptical on trickle-down economics is enough. so what should we call these republicans? i have a suggestion. why not call them democrats? >> that's right. they stand for a certain set of values and they have for a significant amount of time. and so, you know, if they deviate from that, then they are going to be called traitors by the people who remain. it's going to be a tremendous problem. and when you have policies that are unpopular, say, cutting medicare, social security, it doesn't help to, quote/unquote reach out. let's have a town hall and explain why i'm going to cut your social security. it's not that people personally dislike the messenger. they don't like the message that you want to cut medicare or social security or otherwise break the social contract as they've been pushing. so, yeah, it's going
as paul krugman has reported. no, tax all their income. so they've signalled even worse options than just voting for the big tax cut they're going to get to vote for on january 3rd. >> thank you both for joining me. >> thank you. >>> coming up, is america ready for bush 3.0? and the politics of attacking susan rice. why senators might be interested in preventing her being nominated as secretary of state. could the massachusetts senate seat have anything to do with it? and in the rewrite, what republicans do not understand about hispanic voters and why that means democrats will keep winning. new trident layers juicy berry + tangy tangerine is a thrilling, dual-flavored ride to mouth fun-town. but it's not like everyone is going to break into a karaoke jam session. ♪ this will literally probably never happen. he loves risk. but whether he's climbing everest, scuba diving the great barrier reef with sharks, or jumping into the market, he goes with people he trusts, which is why he trades with a company that doesn't nickel and dime him with hidden fees. so he can worry about other things, l
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 115 (some duplicates have been removed)